A 30-year land growth law has been crushingly rejected by the Florida legislature. This growth policy was based on a U.N. initiated program to universally integrate “Sustainable Development/Smart Growth” into all land management use. This law stated that “local jurisdictions were required to adopt comprehensive land use plans stipulating where development could and could not occur.” An in-depth article from the Conservative Women’s Forum cites Florida’s reasons and needs for rejecting stringent restricted land management use. One of the central reasons is given by the Brookings Institute, a public policy think tank.

“The basic problem is that, by delineating and limiting the land that can the used for development, planners create guides to investment, which shows developers where they must buy and tells the now more scarce sellers that the buyers have little choice but to negotiate with them. This can violate the “principle of competitive land supply,” cited by Brookings Institution economist Anthony Downs.”

If Floridians can reject and overturn a 30-year law that controls and manipulates land usage, the City of Gastonia can rescind the 2025 Plan. However, in order to rescind the plan, there must be the will to do so. So far, it doesn’t exist. We have heard some who are “neutral” about the plan is that it was passed just so Gastonia would have a plan, that the plan can be “ignored” or is a general guideline, and that the city is under no obligation to actually FOLLOW the plan. Then why pass such a plan in the first place?

We have heard it said that cities that pass a “sustainable development” plan because they become eligible for grants: all kinds of grant monies. It seems reasonable that by accepting grant monies, Gastonia would be bound to implement the conditions of the grant. That’s how grants work. To not implement the conditions of the grant would be fraudulent, wouldn’t it? And if the grant obligations were not implemented, wouldn’t the city be required to return these monies?

Examples of sustainable development grants are those recently offered by HUD (the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development). HUD is offering $95 million to support the Sustainable Communities Initiative. These grants are Regional Planning Grants and Community Challenge Grants. These grants MUST utilize six (6)Livability Principles as required by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)! These six principles are:

Promote equitable, affordable housing. Expand location- and energy-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities to increase mobility and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation.

Enhance economic competitiveness. Improve economic competitiveness through reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services and other basic needs by workers, as well as expanded business access to markets.

Support existing communities. Target federal funding toward existing communities—through strategies like transit oriented, mixed-use development, and land recycling—to increase community revitalization and the efficiency of public works investments and safeguard rural landscapes.

Coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment. Align federal policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding, and increase the accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for future growth, including making smart energy choices such as locally generated renewable energy.

Value communities and neighborhoods. Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods—rural, urban, or suburban.

Sounds good, right? It means that development will now be forced into urban areas with high density populations to reduce driving (and gas consumption). Gastonia 2025, the Gastonia plan, refers to land use planning that promotes sustainable development principles:

“We have a high quality of life, characterized by the efficient

delivery of public services combined with land use planning

that promotes sustainable development principles.”

The term “sustainable development” itself is language that comes directly from the United Nations. Just today, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stated:

This will require greater accountability and good governance by all. Equity will need to become more fully integrated into our institutions and our policies. The role of the State in advancing this agenda is fundamental. We need to make sustainable development a reality — in the marketplace, in the halls of government, and in our daily lives.”

While the direct goals of the UN are globally broad and relate to overpopulation growth, climate change economics, etc., the purpose of Agenda 21 is to be implemented globally as well. The 2012 Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development mentions Agenda 21 specifically states the the Commission on Sustainable Development should be reviewing the progress of Agenda 21.

Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)

GA resolution 47/191 of 22 December 1992 established the Commission as a high level commission, a status that was re-affirmed in the JPOI. The Commission was tasked, among other things, with monitoring progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and reviewing the progress in the implementation of the commitments set forth in Agenda 21, including those related to the provision of financial resources and transfer of technology. Representatives of various parts of the United Nations system and other intergovernmental organizations, including international financial institutions and regional development banks, are enjoined to “assist and advise the commission in the performance of its functions” and “participate actively in its deliberations”. The JPOI provides that the role of the Commission should include “reviewing and monitoring progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and fostering coherence of implementation, initiatives and partnerships.

Some accuse those who oppose Agenda 21 as being anti-planning or even conspiracy theorists. We are FOR intelligent planning that takes into consideration future growth. We are OPPOSED to planning that comes with strings attached, social equity agendas and those plans that do not take into account existing property ownership rights. Make up your own mind. Agenda 21 is real, and Agenda 21 is now part of our federal, state and local governments. Whatever the goals, it results in less freedom and infringements of our 5th Amendment rights as guaranteed by our Constitution.